I use it all the time. Generally speaking it is very good indeed. However it's capabilities are not as close to Photoshop as they once were - more recent versions of PS offer features GIMP unfortunately cannot touch. Photoshop's capability to work with 'smart objects' would make it a very tempting prospect indeed if it were say a third of the asking price.

However to me, what Photoshop can do that GIMP can't is still nowhere near enough to be worth the extremely high asking price. Other people's needs will vary, of course.

I've used RT with the K-5 a lot, in fact only recently just moved over to Lightroom, and I still think there are some things RT is actually better at than LR (though noise reduction is emphatically not among them).

Yes, JPGs converted by RT are very close to the camera JPGs. I assume this is achieved using a camera profile but I never really bothered to look into the details. However, what you should bear in mind is that this result which is so close to the camera JPG is only the default processing done by RT - it is only a starting point from which you can tweak the image almost infinitely. RT is a powerful tool and using it you can tweak the appearance of a RAW image and still retain image detail to a far greater extent than you could do with a JPEG file.

Therefore to see this as a reason not to bother shooting in RAW is rather missing the point - unless you find you're happy with your JPEG results 99% of the time and don't really care about the other 1%, in which case fire away.

Haha! Brilliant! Here's mine: http://www.differentbypentax.com/#/video/4ea873e984a27

As with most macro lenses around 100mm, the front element of the Pentax is fairly deeply recessed anyway, so to at least some degree has the benefits of a hood before you even attach one. The video I posted the link to doesn't show this because the lens has a UV filter on it in that particular case.

And yes I agree the Pentax is smaller, which is a benefit.

Advantages of the Pentax:

1) It is weather sealed (assuming you're going for the WR version anyway).

2) Build quality is better.

3) The lens hood attaches to the outer lens barrel, so when focussing the overall length of the whole lens (assuming the hood is attached) does not alter, as the inner tube extends in and out entirely within the confines of the lends hood. With the Tamron, on the other hand, the lens hood attaches to the end of the inner tube, so when focussing the lens extends and retracts by a considerable amount, including the hood. To see what I mean take a look at this YouTube video for the Pentax and this one for the Tamron. This means the Pentax is possibly slightly less likely to spook insects with unnecessary movement and you're almost certainly less likely to accidentally bash it on something whilst trying to focus.


Advantages of the Tamron:

1) It has an aperture ring, making it possible to use it on extension tubes for increased magnification.

2) It has a focus limiter, making extreme hunting when using autofocus less likely (though in reality this is perhaps a pretty minor point as the Pentax probably won't hunt a lot most of the time anyway).

3) It is cheaper.

...


Personally I think the advantages of the Pentax outweigh those of the Tamrom, but you may feel differently. Bear in mind if you want to use a macro lens on extension tubes, you will lose autofocus by doing so anyway.

Hope this helps.

How much wobble? My 55-300 has some but it's far too minimal to concern me. I'd say there is less than a millimetre (if that) of travel at the far end of the barrel when fully extended. Two or three millimetres and I might be concerned (but I'm no expert).

Although the Raynox is supposed to be among the best of its kind, I've seen numerous test results which always demonstrate the same thing - a normal lens modified with a close up lens or filter simply won't give you anything close to the sharpness of a true macro. I'd think long and hard about how important image sharpness is to you before going down this route - it could turn out to be another 'cheap' solution that works out 'not so cheap' in the long run.

In theory SR should allow you to use shutter speeds as low as 1/20 - 1/10 sec. at 100mm, although this will vary depending on how steady your grip is in the first place so it's always worth improving your technique in this respect.

100ish mm is a good (and pretty standard) focal length for a true macro lens. It's long enough to be able to keep a bit of distance from skittish subjects like insects, and still short enough to be perfectly usable handheld (especially with SR).

Assuming you are looking for a new lens the Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Macro is an excellent option. It's a bit cheaper than the alternatives but will still set you back a bob or two at £339 on SRS

If expense is no object, go for the Pentax smc DFA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro. It'll cost you about £140 more than the Tamron at £479 on SRS, but it has superior build quality and is weather sealed.

If your budget is a bit lower and you don't mind going second hand you might consider looking for a Samsung D-XENON 100mm F2.8 Macro. It's the same as the Pentax model which preceded the weather sealed version above, but tends to go for a bit less because of the Samsung Branding. It's still likely to cost you at least £250+ though. (The one I linked to is overpriced but the only example I could find on eBay at the moment. They do crop up on a regular basis however.)

If you must have autofocus capability you won't easily find much cheaper than the Samsung unless you are lucky enough to stumble across one of these, the Cosina 100mm F3.5 MC Macro. It's not quite on the same optical level as any of the above and its build quality might provoke open mocking laughter, but it can be picked up for £80-£120 and is hard to beat at that price point - IF you can actually find one. Be aware that there is also a manual focus version which is very similar in appearance, so don't confuse them.

If you can live without autofocus then ALL kinds of options (such as the one Charlotte posted above) open up. Far too many to go into. Image quality is not so much of a limiting factor with (true) Macro lenses because the general standard for such lenses tends to be very high. However that's not to say you should buy just anything without looking into it first!

Like it. Funnily enough I picked up a fallen leaf the other day thinking to do something sort of similar but never got around to it. It's just been sitting around for the last week getting older and less photogenic.